I question things which people take for granted. I would have been that kid who said the emperor was naked. In real life that kid would probably have been lynched, but I'll take my chances...
I believe truth inherently valuable, no matter how well intentioned the ideology it dispels may be.
I also write about random interesting things from my personal life.

29 October 2007

unborn humans and social conservatives; mixing emotion and politics

I went to see the exhibit where they dissect human cadavers,
coat them in plastic, and display them in various poses in a cross between
anatomy education and a morbid art form.

Two of my three companions skipped the section with embryos and fetuses, as
well as a pregnant woman.

I found this surprising, as I found it among the most interesting of the
sections there.

They said it made them uncomfortable (particularly in light of a job which
involves pregnant women.)

I pointed out that they are, and interact with, people all the time, (like us,
right then), and all the other dead people were people. But they felt it was different.

Although my third companion had not skipped this section, she found their
aversion entirely understandable.

I've been thinking about that. People in general seem much more protective of
pregnant women than anyone else.

Murdering a pregnant woman is seen as significantly more heinous than ordinary
murder. A pregnant woman will cause people to give up a seat on the train who
would not do the same for, say, an overweight person, or someone visibly tired,
who may appreciate it just as much.

I suppose the roots may be biological, as embryos are delicate, or it may be
social, but it seems pretty prevalent. The reason isn't important though.
Every person who feels this in someway should be able to understand the strong
feeling of "right-to-lifers".

People who are against abortion are not misogynists, they are not advocating
women be considered less important than men, or less in control of their
bodies. They feel that life is valuable before birth. Apparently liberals feel
this way too, just instinctively. When we argue that a several month old embryo
doesn't have a brain, we are looking at a scientific issue. But in another,
also objective, sense, there really are only to concrete lines that can be
drawn - conception, and birth. defining trimesters is very imprecise, and so in
a way, a bit arbitrary. Of course if you believe (as most of the most
passionate pro-life people do) that man is made in the image of God, then brain
development is irrelevant, as the human soul is injected at the moment of conception.

I think this "reasoning" based on feeling may explain a good deal of
(social) conservative views. Things like gay marriage, religion in schools and
politics, porn and prostitution, sex-ed in schools, the death penalty, media
censorship, or that every person should be responsible for themselves, what
statistics say are irrelevant, what the practical consequences of a policy are,
are irrelevant.

On abortion we argue that a woman should have a choice in her reproductive
choices. To a pro-life person this makes no more sense than arguing a mother
should retain the right to kill her newborn. In each issue we put forth our own
arguments, instead of addressing the issues the people we argue against raise.
Perhaps a more productive tactic would be to attempt first to understand our
opponents view point, and then focus on education. Education of the science and
statistics, but also of our own universal feelings. Anger management involves
becoming aware of ones self. Irrationality management should contain the same.
We need to acknowledge that we all feel unborn humans are valuable, and we all
want rapists and murders put to death, we all feel homosexuality is a little
gross, and that certain things shouldn't be said on TV. Then we can decide
whether giving into these visceral feelings is worth the consequences. And only
then can we begin to articulate our arguments in a way that will mean anything
to the people we want to convince.

--

This belief based not on information and fact but on visceral feeling, it
explains the vice grip religion still has on humanity. Its irrelevant how well
evolution explains everything. Its still unbelievable. The Selfish Gene is one
of my favorite books of all time, but I still find life incredible. Divine
intervention feels more right. Its irrelevant that we can induce mystic visions
and divine experiences with drugs or electrodes to anyone who has experienced
it first hand.

Combine this way of experiencing life with the "why would anyone care
about anything other than money; issues which affect society at large don't
have any bearing on me personally" attitude described in my last blog, and
I guess conservatives become pretty understandable.

Perhaps understanding the opposition could lead to more effective ways of
working with them (read "working with" as "defeating") but
I'm not really sure how. I suppose the only way is education. Lots of it. Not
only on facts, but on the psychology of politics, and of self. In real people
it seems awareness of our own underlying neurosis, obsessions and hang-ups
precedes a rapid transformation. Could this work for society at large? I just
don't know.